Appeals court in California says transgender can sue Catholic hospital for not removing his uterus

An appeals court in California has ruled that a transgender man can sue a Catholic hospital for refusing to perform a hysterectomy, removing his uterus and sterilizing him.
The question now is not whether the transgender can sue for damages, but how much those damages will be.

In accordance with Catholic teaching, the hospital maintains a policy of refusing to remove organs when there is not a medical reason necessitating the removal of those organs. This is a generalized policy and is not aimed at any specific issue in general.

In addition, it is against Catholic policy to sterilize anyone, if it is not necessitated by health reasons.

Although they refused to perform the procedure, hospital helped the transgender man arrange a surgery at a different hospital.

There are multiple hospitals in this area, so it was not like they were denying the transgender the opportunity to get their uterus removed.

Nevertheless, the transgender person sued. California has a law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity, and gender expression.

The trial judge initially threw out the lawsuit, but then it went to an appeals court which overturned the first decision, allowing the lawsuit to proceed.

The appeals court ruled that Dignity Health had an obligation to “provide full and equal access to services”, despite the fact the transgender was able to get their uterus removed at another hospital.

This is a Catholic hospital, with their own religious beliefs, very much against performing this type of thing. Yet the courts in California are making them subject to a lawsuit, with the seeming intent to force them to perform these procedures, taking part in gender transition surgeries.

According to law experts in this area, it’s very unlikely the California Supreme Court will choose to take up this case. The only other way it could be overturned is if it goes to federal court.

This will set a precedent forcing religious hospitals to take part in performing gender transition surgeries even though it violates their beliefs. Seems like these West Coast progressives get sick delight in forcing these religious groups to do this stuff. (Reminds one of the Oregon wedding cake lawsuit)

Unbelievable. But that’s what these laws can do, especially when you have activist judges that can interpret these laws the way they do.

https://www.cmadocs.org/newsroom/ne...terectomy-can-sue-hospital-for-discrimination

 

Does 'transgender man' mean a man who identifies as a woman, or a woman who identifies as a man?

Does this person actually have a uterus?

 

transgender man is a woman that identifies as a man. yeah such a person would have a uterus. law should not forve hospitals to disfigure people in such a way.

 

a brave new world.

 

men don't have a uterus. I'm confused.

 

Trans men do. (Trans man = born a woman, transitions into being a man)

I don't blame you for being confused. I probably should have clarified that in the opening post, I can't expect all of you to be familiar with the latest terminology in the trans movement.

Although they are teaching all this terminology to children in public schools now.

 

The Catholic church has had this type of policy LONG before transgenderism was accepted in general society. And as noted it has nothing to do with transgenders.

Due to that I fail to see how this court could rule the way it did aside from two reasons. 1: something is not being told about the situation...such as a priest flat out saying that it was due to his transgenderism. I doubt this as they're usually not that dumb. 2: Activist judges.

In the end it should be noted that just because the judges said he can sue...that doesn't mean he will win. And again, unless there's something that isn't being said... The guy should lose.

 

Is it not the job of judges to interpret the law? If they're interpreting it poorly, inconsistently or not as intended, it is for the legislators to change the law as necessary. Was the judge who initially threw out the case interpreting the law and therefore being an "activist judge" too? Or does "activist" now mean "disagrees with me"?

I'm personally torn on the underlying question because it is a conflict between two different beliefs and, unlike a lot of the people who comment on such things, I have no great investment in either. Your position does raise some questions though;

Who determines what is medically necessary? It is possible for an independent psychologist to determine this is medically necessary (however much that might be disputed) and there are certainly other treatments and procedures that are commonly recognised as necessary yet go against some religious (or personal) beliefs.

Would it be different if there were no alternative providers? How convenient and practical do those alternatives need to be?

Do you think the law for medical providers to “provide full and equal access to services” shouldn't apply to religious organisations or shouldn't exist at all? Should an equally strongly held personal objection that happens not to be based on any (recognised) religion be treated the same? (Note that isn't a question about what the US Constitution says but what should actually happen)

I just don't think this kind of situation is anything like as simple as any of the vocal proponents on any side would like to make it out to be. It might be nice if they at least acknowledged that complexity and lack of simple answers.

 

Doctors determine what is and isn't medically necessary. Many doctor...dare I say the vast majority... will not remove an organ unless its medically necessary. For instance doctors no longer remove tonsils from children at the first instance of tonsillitis. It has to be chronic for them to agree to remove them.

And for many doctors, I won't say a vast majority, the only way that they'll remove any organ is if its failing or likely to fail.

As for whether psychologists should be able to deem the removal of an organ as "medically" necessary? No. I don't think they should. The are not medical doctors. They don't have degrees in biology. Or bodily chemistry. Thier only degree is of mental illness.

This is not to say that they shouldn't be allowed to make the suggestion and ask a doctor to perform a surface change of a body. A person can alter thier body if they wish....provided they can find a willing doctor to do so. And yes ..I realize that some States, like California, has mandated that doctors perform these surgeries. I believe such laws to be completely unconstitutional and frankly I hope that it goes to SCOTUS eventually. I'll accept thier decision no matter what it is. If they rule in a way I disagree with then I will advocate changing the law. I won't cry "activist" with SCOTUS. I believe them all to be trying to do thier best. And evidence shows that more often than not most of thier rulings are generally unanimous. The only times we hear about them though is when they split...which gives the perception of bias to many...because they never hear about the unanimous decisions.

 

all he would have to do is say those organs sinned, the bible supports removing them then

"And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell."

'Matthew 5:30"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5:30&version=KJV

 

You don't need Mathew 5:30 to make a medical determination that removing organs unnecessarily is detrimental to the body. Don't believe me? Then explain why doctors refuse to cut off a perfectly healthy leg, or arm. (You do know there are people that want such right? It's called body integrity disorder)

 

never said they did, this hospital is claiming religion as their determining factor... real hospitals do not do that

if they have a real reason, use that rather then a religious reason... simple

 

Doctors or hospital administrators? Is this a clinically informed policy or a religiously informed one? Should religion be involved in clinical policy making?

Obviously no competent doctor would perform any medical intervention that wasn't necessary. The question remain who is actually making that decision (free of pressure or influence) and whether it is based entirely on the holistic good of the patient or whether any predetermined fixed religious concepts are overruling everything else.

They're not (necessarily) medical doctors but that doesn't mean their professional opinion on the best form of treatment for their patients isn't valid.

I bet they haven't. They will have mandated that there should be no discrimination, including on the basis of grounds some people (religious and not) might not like. No doctor or hospital is forced to provide any specific form of treatment (outside some emergency situations), they just can't offer it to one class of patient but not another.

That's the basis this case has been brought on. Based on the description given, I personally think it's sounds legally flawed and shouldn't be successful (though as is always the case, it's also possible we're not being given all the relevant facts). Not of that means there aren't moral and practical questions and issues to address though.

 

Bold: Probably both depending on the circumstances.

Rest: In regards to healthy body parts? I see no reason that religion couldn't have an effect. Lets face it, being a transgender is not something that is going to kill you just because you don't get a surgery.

I put the "dare I say" in just to make sure no one would put in a "gotcha" moment. There are always exceptions to every rule.

Not saying otherwise. But that still doesn't mean that they know the bodily and chemical effects that their suggested treatments are going to have. They might know how the person might FEEL about something. But that is it.

Yes, I'm sure they worded it just as you describe. The end effect though is that doctors will be mandated to perform the surgery or get their pants sued off because often just the claim alone is enough to make them have to shell out hundreds of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees. And with the right jury possibly millions. It's basically a war of attrition, just like that baker that keeps getting sued for not decorating cakes the way that certain people want him to.

Agreed.

 

That isn't "how they worded it", it is exactly what the law means. It should also be noted that we're not talking about new laws. Anti-discrimination laws started with race, gender and, of course, religion. If you're objecting to the law, you're objecting to it all.

 

You do not think a religious hospital is a real hospital?

How is a "religious reason" fundamentally different from any other reason?

Philosophically, I don't think it's quite so simple as you imagine.

 

First I guess, please pardon my non-PC pronoun usage, but I just can't bring myself to assert the possessive adjective, "his" with its object, "uterus".

It's seems to me to be nothing more than yet another California lawsuit cash grab. This individual was free to research her options to find the best facility and the best doctor to have the procedure. Instead she obviously chose a facility that would likely provide her an opportunity to file a lawsuit, a cash grab. And the CMA has hopped on the train because more than likely they have a fundamental abhorrence to any religious doctrine overriding their "lay" medical authoritah! Perhaps, and I'm just guessing here, they have an especially biased interest to go after Catholic backed health care providers.

Ah, Cali, the land of fruits and nuts and lawsuits.

 

@kazenatsu

Men don't have a uterus. This must be a joke article or something.

 

It's not a joke article. There are a couple of sources covering this story, including LifeSite.

In California, where this story took place, they consider a woman who transitions into a man to be a man, or at least a "trans man".
It's considered very offensive if you point out that this person is not the gender that they claim to be.
Thus a man can have a uterus.
It's a matter of semantic definitions.

 

It's not really surprizing, totalitarism and liberticidal behavour are quite common at the left, even if they don't have the monopoly of that.

 

A federal appeals court blocked the Biden administration's requirement that healthcare and insurance groups perform transgender procedures in a case brought by religious doctors who argued the mandate violated their religious beliefs.

But wait, there's more!

Religious freedom groups came out victorious after the Biden administration missed a deadline last week to appeal a federal court ruling that struck down a transgender Department of Health and Human Services mandate...

...The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit struck down the mandate on Aug. 26, holding that religious groups cannot be required to conduct gender-transition surgeries and citing the Supreme Court precedent established in the 2020 Bostock v. Clayton County decision.

Both policies required providers to perform this lunacy on minors. One would think that if Brandon's puppet masters appeal the 8th Circuit decision, the current SCOTUS will green light the ruling. Merry Christmas!

 

related older thread about this story:
Appeals court in California says transgender can sue Catholic hospital for not removing his uterus

 

Astounding anyone even wants to mutilate children like this….they can’t even drink beer yet we think they can make these choices. The sheer stupidity.

 

The mind blowing evil of the administration of Grandpa Felony Fingers and Kamala with the "I'm horny" giggle after the rigged 2020 election continues to be beyond belief, BUT, it must be resolutely stood against by Free Americans.

Florida Subpoenas Nearly Two Dozen Organizations Pushing Hormones, Transgender Surgeries For Children

"Gender-affirming” care is a euphemism for treatments and procedures that facilitate sex changes...'

Who are the Groomers and Pusher's hell-bent on destroying innocent children?

'The subpoenas, issued by the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA), and which seek information about internal decision-making processes and leadership structures for pushing hormone treatments and transgender surgeries on minors, went out in November to 20 organizations.'

As soon as Obamacare required to insurance to pay for this, the grifter began recruiting children for genital destruction.

Who are the slicers, dicers, and drug pushers?

'Subpoena recipients include;

• the American Pediatric Association,
• American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
• American Medical Association,
• American Psychiatric Association,
• Pediatric Endocrine Society,
• Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine and
• Yale University, despite not being a medical organization because Yale professors have been involved in pushing against the new rule.'

'All 20 organizations have either promoted or employ individuals who promote "gender-affirming" care for minors. The request includes documents pertaining to deliberations involving gender dysphoria and related care, along with policies which have been adopted, side effects associated with those policies and treatments, and how members voted to support said policies.'

'Plaintiffs in the case have argued that the Medicaid rule violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.'

They will have an opportuntiy to make their case to the Court.

 

Little Boy:

• I want to be an astronaut!
• No, I want to be a fireman!
• No, I want to be a girl!

Slicers and Pushers: HE'S DECIDED, CASTRATE HIM!